Science is our never-ending quest for truth. Scientists test what we think we know, evolve new theories, and then test those. Science is rigorous; however good a theory might sound, if the evidence doesn’t support it, the theory is discarded. A theory can never be “proven” as a new discovery could come along tomorrow that makes everything we’ve thought up until now redundant. Science is scepticism.

Yet uniquely and somewhat implausibly we are told that the science around catastrophic man-made global warming is “settled”. Nothing to see here, don’t ask any questions, pay your green taxes and move along.

Given that politicians , pressure groups, NGOs and multinational organisations have warmly and unquestioningly embraced “climate change” in order to raise our taxes and give a coat of “greenwash” to otherwise unacceptable policies, I think we’re entitled to ask a few questions and point out some obvious flaws.

– Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is an odorless, invisible, harmless trace gas that makes up just 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is essential for life on Earth. Without it, we would all be dead. Mankind’s CO2 emissions amount to a tiny percentage of that tiny percentage.

– If mankind’s carbon dioxide is the main driver of global warming, why when our CO2 emissions have risen dramatically over the past 20 years has there been no rise in global temperature?

– There is evidence that rather than CO2 levels causing temperatures to rise, it is rising temperatures that cause CO2 levels to rise. Scientists have observed this by looking at ice cores.

– Why were temperatures much higher at other times in history when CO2 levels were lower? The Vikings used to farm Iceland. They didn’t use CO2-spewing tractors to do so.

– The Earth’s climate is controlled by hundreds if not thousands of variables, many of which are yet to be discovered. How can we be so certain that our tiny CO2 emissions are the main driver, when the sun’s activity or wind patterns or volcanic activity can have a massive effect?

– We are told that a tiny rise in the Earth’s temperature will be a catastrophically bad thing. Might a small rise not have a net benefit? Might fewer pensioners in the northern hemisphere freeze to death each winter? Any change in the climate will have positives and negatives, but we’re told “climate change” can only ever be catastrophically bad.

– The only known, proven effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that it makes plants grow more quickly. Any school-kid will tell you that plants “breathe” carbon dioxide. A mass “greenification” has been seen across Africa that has been attributed to rising CO2 levels. Surely this is a good thing?

– Even IF the planet is warming and IF the main cause is our CO2, why are we spending £billions on futile attempts to lower CO2 rather than on doing what humans do best; adapting to the changing climate? Richer economies care more about the environment. They can afford to. All our efforts to “tackle climate change” make us poorer.  A tiny fraction of the amount spent “tackling climate change” would effectively flood-proof the UK.

– Why are we killing people now to tackle something that may or may not kill people in future? Thousands have died as our air has become more polluted by diesel cars, a direct result of the drive to “tackle climate change” by getting us out of petrol cars. In some of the world’s poorest countries, countries that are unable to feed themselves, food crops are replaced with biofuel crops to supply Western requirements for a minimum amount of biofuel in our petrol.

– Why have none of the catastrophic predictions made by scientists and activists over the past 50 years ever come true? We were told in 1971 that the Great Barrier Reef would be gone in 6 months. It’s still there and, despite what you read, it is doing just fine. We were told in 2000 that British children would never again see snow. We were told to plant desert plants in our gardens because global warming meant every summer would be a heat wave. We were told polar bears would go the way of the dodo, but they are at record high numbers. We’ve be told so many times, by everyone from Prince Charles to Gordon Brown, that we only have X number of days to save the planet that we should all be dead 100 times over by now. Would any other theory survive such a parlous track record?

Any scientist worthy of the name, any politician involved in setting energy or environment policy, should be asking such questions, and many more. Yet anyone who dares question the theory is smeared as a “climate denier”. This is not the language of science; it is the language of religion.

Literally nobody “denies” climate change. Our planet’s climate has evolved through billions of years and will continue to do so. Many do, however, have reasonable questions about spending $1trillion every year on the basis of a theory that, to say the least, has some obvious holes in it.



Part Two of this article – “Global warming is about politics, not the planet…”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email